DECLARATION OF GRAHAM E. BERRY
 
I, GRAHAM E. BERRY, declare and state:
 
    I am over the age of 18 years. I am the defendant in the within adversary 
proceeding. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this 
declaration and, if called upon as a witness, would testify thereto.
1.  This Declaration is submitted in support of my motion for leave to 
withdraw as one of defendant’s counsel herein on the grounds that: (a) I
will 
be absent from the country at the time of the currently scheduled trial date 
of January 22, 2001, because of an earlier scheduled and paid for, 
non-refundable, non-changeable trip to my parents’ home in New Zealand;
(b) 
my continuing partial and temporary disability resulting from Church of 
Scientology conduct directed at me; (c) my original representations  (because 
of this disability), that I would not be appearing as trial counsel herein. 
Attached hereto and marked, as Exhibit A is a copy of medical certificate of 
Duane E.McWaine dated November 19, 1999. An updated certificate will be filed 
as soon as possible.
2.  Over the past ten years I have been engaged in extensive litigation 
involving the Church of Scientology. However, the Church’s Fair Game
Policies 
and Practises, intended to "destroy" those such as Henson and me who are 
perceived of as impeding the Church’s plans to take over the world and
its 
plans to exterminate at least 2.5% of the population as well as all others 
who oppose its plans, has extracted such a toll upon me that I am now 
partially and temporarily disabled. I am not able to engage in legal 
practise, most particularly I am not able to engage in the stresses of 
litigation and trial practice.
 
 
 
3. I have represented Keith Henson in a number of the eight cases that have 
been filed against him at the instigation of the Church of Scientology and 
its representatives. When he learned, the night before his arraignment 
herein, through a motion filed by Church of Scientology lawyers in an 
unrelated case, that he was to be arraigned the next morning herein, he 
begged for my advice and assistance. Although the Court files herein stated 
he had been sent a summons to appear, none had been received. The next morn
ing when, to the Church of Scientology’s evident disappointment, Mr. 
Henson appeared for arraignment  and on my advice asked for a delay. He was 
given an unfolded original of the defendant’s copy of the
summons/notice, 
which the court file noted had already been mailed to him. Had Mr. Henson not 
accidentally learned of his arraignment the next day, he could have, and 
likely would have been arrested on a non-appearance warrant while being 
deposed by Scientology counsel in Los Angeles. This counsel had known since 
September 13, 2000, of the conflicting arraignment and deposition schedules.
4. Ten days later, after Mr. Henson and I appeared at the postponed 
arraignment, we went to seek appropriate local counsel as Mr. Henson was well 
aware that it was my intention to assist him (and his attorney after one had 
been retained) by acting solely as a consultant with regard to the 
Scientology enterprise.
5. By the intended start of trial on October 30, 2000,. James Harr, Esq., was 
representing Mr. Henson in the matter herein. 
6. When Mr. Henson requested my assistance because of the surprising news of 
his arraignment, I reminded him of the fact that I while I remained an active 
member of the 
 
 
California bar I was not engaged in active practice because of my temporary 
and partial health disability as explained in the attached letter by Dr. 
McWaine. As this letter indicates, this disability was primarily caused by 
the Church of Scientology and its Fair Game Policies and Practices as 
directed against me.
7.  In 1991-1992, I was part of the successful defense team in the
Church of 
Scientology v. Yanny I and II cases. I also appeared in the Church of 
Scientology v. Armstrong II case. In 1993-1994, I successfully led the 
defense team in Church of Scientology International v. Fishman
& Geertz, CD DC CA Case No.91-6426-HLH. We (me and my defense team of six 
lawyers)
developed evidence regarding the Church of Scientology’s involvement in 
murders, suicides and financial frauds (even against the United States 
Government). After engaging in blackmail to have me removed from the case, 
Church of Scientology "Chief Investigator" Eugene Ingram, Scientology 
attorneys Helena Kobrin and Elliot Abelson, and Church of Scientology Office 
of Special Affairs ("OSA") managed to secure custodial access to my
clients’ 
files even though Dr.Geertz was still engaged, and would continue to be 
engaged, in malicious
 prosecution proceedings against the Church. Similarly, with Fishman and 
Geertz now unrepresented in 1994, Moxon convinced Federal Judge Hupp to 
temporarily seal the District Court file. Subsequently, I have been involved 
in a number of other Church of Scientology related cases including at least 
four cases involving Mr.Henson.He was successful in three of those.
8.  Since 1993, Moxon & Kobrin, Abelson and Ingram have repeatedly contacted 
(under the guise of  "investigating" me) almost all of my professional 
colleagues, clients, partners, opposing 
 
 
counsels, friends, acquaintances, etc., around this city and indeed around 
the world. In particular, they have distributed, and continue to publish, a 
now recanted May 5,1994, Church/Moxon/Ingram blackmailed and bribed 
declaration of Robert Cipriano perjuriously and baselessly accusing me of 
pedophilia. Their Internet postings remain on the World Wide Web even though 
recanted by Cipriano. Practically speaking, this has rendered it impossible 
for me to practice law either with a firm or alone. As intended by Moxon & 
Kobrin, it has shrunk my circle of friends, associates, clients and 
activities. I am now nearly a virtual recluse after feeling 
mugged, raped and plundered by Moxon & Kobrin, Abelson, Rosen, Ingram and 
Scientology’s improper and unethical manipulation of the legal system
and 
"Fair Gaming" of me.
Cipriano’s deposition has recently been taken in the State Court Hurtado
v. 
Berry case. Moxon tried to prevent the deposition being taken, terminated it, 
brought an unsuccessful ex parte motion to quash it and then wanted to have 
the transcript sealed. In the deposition Cipriano repeatedly testified to 
Moxon that Moxon had blackmailed and bribed him, suborned perjury from him, 
solicited his representation, engaged in witness tampering, tortous conduct, 
serious ethical breaches and in the criminal obstruction of justice during the
 Berry v. Cipriano consolidated cases. Moxon did not rebut or deny any of 
these allegations before the District Court in the Pattinson v. Miscavige 
case. Instead, his only and successful argument was that they are legally 
irrelevant! At the time of this testimony, then District Attorney Gil 
Garcetti refused to pursue this criminal conduct of Moxon’s,
corroborated by 
fifty irrefutable and uncontroverted documents (many in Moxon’s own 
handwriting) for as one of his chief aides said, "Graham, we cannot do it for 
political reasons. One day I may be able to explain it to you." Naturally, 
that 
 
"political reason" was probably related to Moxon and the Church of 
Scientology’s criminal defense counsel, Gerald Chaleff, Esq., who is
also 
Chairman of the Los Angeles Police Commission. 
9.  Then, on September 13, 2000, Abelson embarked upon another character 
assasination campaign, which he described as an "investigation". He wrote, 
"The purpose of my investigation is to uncover unethical or illegal conduct 
committed by Mr. Berry." Other lawyers have described it as " the most 
despicable conduct" by an attorney that they have ever seen. It was provided 
to my parents, my neighbours, longtime friends and others listed as ccs on 
the document. Some had never heard of me before, but were neighbours of my 
friend, Jane
Scott, an ex-scientologist whose former husband has contributed over one 
million dollars to 
Scientology. The letter had the effect of plunging me into deeper depression 
from which I am only now, after a substantial increase in the dosage of 
medication I am taking, beginning to emerge.
10. In October, I went to Germany to assist the Lisa McPherson Trust as one 
of their counsel. The German Secret Police provided our group with security 
officers to protect us from the Church of Scientology’s potential
activities 
against us and from OSA’s constant surveillance. Many European nations
deem 
the Church to be a subversive, terrorist, criminal, political and commercial 
organization which has to be monitored and restricted. Indeed, I remain under 
regular surveillance by the Church’s OSA organization.
11. During this trip to Germany, I learned facts, which lead me to conclude 
that Scientology has essentially been creating false claims of persecution in 
Germany and other European
 
countries in order to persuade the United States’State Department to
advance 
the Church of Scientology’s "religious" agenda upon the contrived claim
of 
religious persecution. One of my German hosts, Ursula Caberta, is the head of 
the State of Hamburg’s Working Group on Scientology which in Europe is
widely 
considered to be a for profit commercial and terrorist organization with 
global totalitarian political objectives. Moxon & Kobrin sued Ms. Caberta in 
the Florida Courts when she recently visited the Lisa McPherson Trust in 
Clearwater, Florida. [See generally: www.lisatrust.net; 
www.lisamcpherson.org; www.xenu.net; www.xenutv.com; www.lermanet.com.] Even 
though barred by principles of sovereign immunity Moxon & Kobrin 
continue to harass Caberta (a former legislator) with this abusive litigation 
against a foreign government official with falsely and widely published 
corruption allegations. Indeed, OSA 
stages daily, ugly demonstrations outside the offices of her superiors for 
the purpose of intimidating them into dismissing her. Similarly, they picket 
Mr.Henson’s home and the f his and his wife’s employers.
12. During this same period of time, the in-house scientology legal unit, the 
Moxon & Kobrin law offices, also surreptitiously arranged for documents to be 
placed in the INS file of my former client, Michael Pattinson, in an 
ultimately unsuccessful attempt to prevent him from receiving his INS "green 
card". Mr.Pattinson successfully sued the INS in connection with Moxon & 
Kobrin’s apparent conduct. The INS could not explain how the Moxon &
Kobrin 
documents found themselves in the Pattinson "green card" file and it was 
ordered to immediately issue Mr.Pattinson’s "green card."
13. Similarly, during this same 1998 to the present date, Moxon & Kobrin and 
Samuel 
 
D. Rosen, Esq., from New York continued to harass Keith Henson, his wife and 
18-year-old daughter in Northern District Bankruptcy Court. As a rough 
estimate, the Church of Scientology has spent over one million dollars in 
connection with its claim for $75,000 (Henson I, breach of copyright 
statutory damages) against Mr. Henson who is in bankruptcy because of the 
Church of Scientology. Clearly, the bankruptcy process is being abused in Mr. 
Henson’s case. The amount of money being spent to harass the Henson
family, 
their friends and Henson’s prospective employers far outweighs any
possible 
recovery by the Church of Scientology. Of significance to 
the charges filed herein, Moxon & Kobrin and Rosen took a 4th day of
Henson’s 
deposition on 
October 24, 2000. Henson objected to certain of Rosen’s questions as
being 
collateral discovery 
for the case of The People v. Henson. Rosen denied this, insisted the 
questions be answered on 
pain of sanctions, and represented that the questions and documents were not 
collateral discovery. A mere two days later Rosen personally had delivered an 
expedited copy of that Henson deposition transcript to the Hemet District 
Attorney for use in this same People v. Henson case which was then scheduled 
for trial the next court day. Indeed, earlier the same morning, New York 
attorney Rosen (charging $500 per hour) sat in the Hemet Municipal Courtroom 
during the pre-trial status conference in The People v. Henson and 
communicated with the Deputy District Attorney as to strategy. The same DDA 
has conceded to me that Scientology representatives have been actively 
assisting the Riverside District attorney’s prosecution of Mr.Henson. At
the 
October 26, 2000, status conference Rosen said to me, as I spoke to the DDA, 
" Mr. Berry, are you still being a vexatious litigant? Robert, (indicating 
DDA Robert Schwartz) don’t pay attention to him. We’re having him
disbarred!"
 
 
14. The People v. Henson record in Hemet is also clear as to improper 
pressure being brought upon the District Attorney to prosecute Henson despite 
the Hemet police fully investigating and reporting, in three different police 
reports, that Henson had committed no crime. This pressure was bought by 
Gerald Feffer, Esq., of the Washington, D.C. criminal defense law firm of 
Williams & Connolly. Mr.Feffer is one of Scientology’s lead attorneys
and was 
instrumental in having the IRS suddenly and surprisingly drop its 20 year 
refusal to grant Scientology tax exempt status in exchange for Scientology 
dismissing the over 2000 law suits it had caused to be filed against the IRS. 
According to an address by David Miscavige, Scientology’s leader, the
IRS 
relieved the Church of Scientology from a past due tax bill of over one 
billion dollars, David 
Miscavige and other scientology leaders from personal tax bills in the 
hundreds of thousands of dollars, appointed a committee of scientology 
officials to determine the future tax compliance of the Church and individual 
scientologists and provided for the United States government to brief all 
foreign governments as to the Church of Scientology’s new tax free
status in 
the U.S. and Scientology’s alleged entitlement to tax free income in
those 
nations. At the same time, the Church of Scientology reached a settlement 
with Interpol with which it had been warring for many years.
15. Mr. Henson has publicly stated that his research has disclosed that 
Moxon, on behalf of the Church of Scientology, was instrumental in paying a 
Maryland private investigator over one million dollars in fees and "costs" to 
set up the then new IRS Commissioner in a compromising situation(s) so that 
he would finally approve the Church of Scientology’s IRS Section 501(c)
(3) 
applications despite over 20 years of IRS and FBI opposition to their being 
granted 501(c) (3) 
 
status. The same opposition to Scientology’s 501 (c) (3) status which
had 
been upheld the previous year by the US Supreme Court in the Hernandez v. 
Commissioner case.
16. My 75-year-old parents visited me briefly last October. They were shocked 
by Scientology’s/Abelson’s packet, described above, and offered
to pay for 
me to visit them in New Zealand for six weeks from December 18, 2000, until 
January 31, 2001.I accepted and they purchased me a non-refundable, 
non-changeable air fare. That was purchased on October 20, 2000, before the 
Courts currently scheduled trial date of January 22, 2001.
17. The People v. Henson case is a misdemeanor terrorism case in which the 
victims concurrently claim they are at cause over matter, energy, space and 
time, but are in a sustained 
state of  terror caused by Henson’s web postings, taken out of context,
and his picketing of 
their paramilitary base! Arguing by analogy to assault cases and the "egg 
shell skull doctrine" that you take your victim as you find him, they now 
advance the "numbskull doctrine", that brainwashed cult members, who are not 
allowed access to the Internet and are actively prevented (by the Church of 
Scientology "net nanny") from reading the newsgroups on which Henson posts, 
may have an unreasonable and irrational fear based on unreasonable and out of 
context statements of which they were informed selectively, but which they 
did not read. It is the 8th case that Scientology has either filed or 
instigated against critic, Keith Henson, on whom they have expended at least 
$2,000,000 in legal fees to try to gag him and stop him from picketing 
Scientology facilities. Samuel D.Rosen, Esq., has been the recipient of the 
bulk of these fees. Indeed, Mr. Rosen has vowed to pursue Mr. Henson for the 
rest of his days. The two previous People v. Henson cases (for picketing 
related conduct), and Hoden v. Henson (an almost identical suit to that herein) were dismissed. 
18. My withdrawal from my limited role (as a consultant on Scientology 
litigation issues) in The People v Henson case will now leave Mr. Henson with 
Mr.Harr as counsel, in accordance with the plan at the beginning of these 
proceedings. Moxon & Kobrin and Rosen’s harassment of Henson, his
family, 
neighbours and employers has rendered it almost impossible for Mr.Henson to 
obtain or retain employment and so adequately and promptly pay Mr.Harr. 
However, this is what the Church of Scientology’s Fair Game Policies and
 
Practices, as applied by Ingram, Moxon & Kobrin, Abelson, Rosen and others is 
all about. Indeed, Scientology brought New 
York attorney Samuel D. Rosen, on October 26, 2000, to observe a status 
conference I attended 
in this latest People v. Henson case. In this regard, it is significant to 
note from a cost standpoint, that Mr. Rosen (a copyright lawyer) charges 
approximately $500.00 per hour (and as he has testified in court, "No 
discounts to anyone!") and requires two first class plane seats and luxury 
hotel accommodations when he travels, even for the 501(c)(3) Scientology 
organization. In another case he claimed that he "did business in California" 
and therefore knew that the California courts would impose the sanctions he 
would seek if his deposition questions were not answered. In one of the eight 
Henson cases, Mr. Rosen said to me, in open court that he would "Smash your 
[my] face in!" This was the subject of a side bar conference on the record 
and several subsequent declarations including those of two witnesses.
19. I am also required to face the Church of Scientology as a defendant in a 
case they solicited. This occurs one month after I return from New 
Zealand.The California Superior Court trial in Hurtado v. Berry is scheduled 
to commence on March 5, 2001.Moxon & Kobrin are trial 
 
 
counsel in that case. Insurance carrier appointed counsel therein is 
representing me. During the Berry v. Cipriano/Berry v. Barton/Berry v. 
Miscavige [and Moxon] litigation that Rosen and Moxon: (1) obtained an order 
that they be provided with the details of my malpractice insurance coverage; 
and (2) insisted that I respond to questions about a pre-existing sexual 
relationship (which is expressly permissible) with a subsequent pro bono 
client, Michael Hurtado. Deposition evidence in the Hurtado v. Berry 
(including that of Hurtado and his mother) now establishes that: (1) 
Moxon’s investigator, Ingram, visited Hurtado’s parents and
showed them the 
now recanted  first  Cipriano declaration and my deposition testimony in the 
Berry cases, upon which they 
expressly relied; (2) arranged for Hurtado’s parents to meet with
attorneys 
Moxon and Donald
Wager who solicited the representation of their then 24 year old son in 
action against me for 
alleged sexual battery and legal malpractice; (3) that Ingram, Moxon and 
Wager then met with Hurtado, told him that he could make a lot of money by 
suing me, that I was a "very bad person" who they had,  " . . . been after 
for a long time" and that they would represent him for free; that (4) Wager 
and Hurtado made certain perjurious statements to the Santa Monica Superior 
Court in order to have Hurtado’s drug diversion plea set aside for
alleged 
attorney misconduct and forwarded that false testimony and argument to the 
California State Bar; that (5) Ingram, Wager, and Scientology attorney Elliot 
Abelson then unsuccessfully sought to have the LA District Attorney’s
office 
file criminal charges against me; and (6) unsuccessfully demanded a $750,000 
settlement, then a $100,000 settlement, more recently a $15,000 settlement 
and now a voluntary dismissal in exchange for general releases of Hurtado, 
et. al., from my insurance carrier; and (7) after Hurtado was rearrested (on 
charges relating to conduct that was essentially burglary and 
 
lying in wait [in a bedroom closet] for a woman with a carving knife) trying 
through Ingram to pressure the State’s complainant to drop the charges. 
Hurtado then served a year in prison and is now on 10 years probation. 
Discovery is drawing to a close in that case. A settlement conference is 
scheduled for February 2, 2001.However, I cannot consent to settle the case, 
under any circumstances or arrangement because of the Moxon & Kobrin/Ingram 
continuing world wide dissemination of these perjurious allegations on the 
Internet. Accordingly, even a substantial monetary offer to release malicious 
prosecution and abuse of process claims against all those 
involved could not be accepted under any circumstances. I believe that a 
successful trial is 
required to clear my name. Of course, the circumstances are also such that 
some of these involved may be indicted, and Hurtado could have his ten years 
of probation cancelled irrespective of the outcome of any subsequent perjury 
proceeding against Hurtado.
20. I am currently under the care of Dr. McWaine because of the temporarily 
disabling depression from which I am now and have been suffering, primarily 
caused by the long standing course of conduct against me by Moxon, Kobrin, 
Paquette, Rosen, Ingram and others. I am taking anti-depressant medications 
prescribed by Dr. McWaine. I have recently increased the dosage of one of my 
medications from 50 mg to 200 mg (which was to have been the appropriate 
dosage all along). Increasing this medication has rendered me a bit less 
lethargic and susceptible to procrastination and overwhelm and I seem to have 
less frequent suicidal ideations. Nevertheless, even with these minor 
improvements, I am physically, mentally and emotionally unable to continue at 
this time with any trial representation, brief writing or other related 
activities. Accordingly, I must seek to withdraw from the only case (other 
than my own) in which I am currently involved.
21. Dr. McWaine is expected to prepare a letter confirming and updating his 
report of a year ago. (See Exhibit A hereto). This updated report will be 
filed as soon as it is available.
22. I have not included testimony regarding similar Moxon & 
Kobrin/Abelson/Rosen in other cases in which I do not have personal 
involvement or an attorney client relationship. These cases would include 
both the Mark Bunker case and Jesse Prince arrest where scientology has also 
been instrumental in instigating improper and baseless prosecutorial 
activity. Abelson, a former Mafia and Gambino "Family" criminal defense 
attorney is closely involved in the Bunker 
prosecution. In both the Bunker and Prince matters there are allegations of 
Church of Scientology-related evidence planting and/or tampering.
23.  Until subjected to abusive scientology litigation tactics and 
"overwhelm", I had never been sanctioned by any court anywhere. I believed 
that law enforcement was essentially honest and that the courts were 
generally incorruptible despite what a 1980 American Lawyer article described 
as the Church of  "Scientology’s War Against The Judges". I stood up to 
scientology because I believed such abusive conduct would not be tolerated by 
our courts. I believed that our courts would not be subverted with such 
apparent legal impunity. After all, say most law enforcement and other public 
officials, "Scientology is a church and a religion!" To learn otherwise has 
been a major factor in the often-immobilizing depression for which I have 
been under medical attention for since June 1998. It is extremely painful to 
have to constantly fight abuse of the legal system by the Church of 
Scientology and its activities to "utterly destroy" its critics in accordance 
with the written procedures set forth in its Fair Game Policies and Practices.
 
 
24. When I appeared at the arraignment of Mr. Henson on October 30, 2000, I 
made it clear to him and to the court that I was only appearing for the 
purpose of the arraignment and that I would not be trial counsel, in part 
because local counsel was required, in part because of my current disability, 
and in part also because I may be required as a witness (although there are 
now other witnesses available to testify as to the same facts, thus making my 
evidence redundant.)
25. Like Mr. Henson, I have also picketed alone and with others on a number 
of occasions over several years and on each of these occasions those present 
at the base, or Golden Era Productions as it is publicly called, behaved in 
exactly the same way that they now allege is the basis for the criminal 
charges pending herein. That is, the scientologists are herded away from any 
place from which they might view my picket sign and private investigators 
often walk the picket line with me, and verbally harass me, as they do to Mr. 
Henson and many others. Golden Era is in fact a heavily armed paramilitary 
base: (www. holysmoke.org/tabayoyon2.txt; 
www.scientology-lies.com/andretabayoyon.html; 
www.sky.net/~sloth/sci/tabayoyon2  
www.sky.net/~sloth/sci/mary.tabayoyon.html).
26. Clearly, what the Scientologists in charge are afraid of is that some of 
their numbers might be exposed to the contents of our picket signs and that 
might lead to the asking of difficult and potentially embarrassing questions 
for which there are no simple, pat answers. Or worse yet, that seeing the 
content of the picket signs might lead some of the "fold" to defect. 
Experience has taught me that the people in control of Scientology are afraid 
of our exercising our Constitutional right of free speech. They are arguably 
more worried about Mr. Henson and others’interference with their
prospective 
economic advantage than they are worried about any alleged weapons of  
 
 
mass destruction which they accuse Mr. Henson of possessing. Assuredly, they 
are afraid of the pen, not the sword. Why else would they have had a 
$500/hour New York copyright attorney (Rosen) show up in the courtroom to 
coach the ADA during Mr. Henson’s arraignment?
27.     I have discussed this motion to withdraw with James Harr,Esq., who 
agreed to file and appear on it and with Keith Henson who said he would 
discharge me and raise no objection to this motion.
 
I declare under penalty of perjury according to the laws of the Sate of 
California and the United States of America that the foregoing is true and 
correct.
 
Executed in Los Angeles, California on this the 18th of December 2000.      
 
______________________________
    Graham E.Berry